QDR Solicitors - One Parking Solution, Vantage Point Brighton - CASE WON DISMISSED BY JUDGE

GherkinInTheGarden

I just received a General Form of Judgement from the court today.  Regardless, I am unfamiliar with the process but does this mean I attend court on 17 April or that the Claimant needs to provide information to the court by 4 pm that date?  I will be out of town on 17 April and would need the date changed if I have to attend.  Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Ah that's fine. Nothing for you to do!

Show us the Reply to Defence when it arrives.  It will be a pile of template rubbish.

GherkinInTheGarden

Oh, OK, we were going to be out of town on 17 April and asked for a different court date.  Whoever gets that email will know we are complete novices!  Will share the Reply to Denfence when received.  Thanks.

Coupon-mad

That's not a court date.

GherkinInTheGarden

Yes, they have already informed me that it’s for the Claimant to reply by that date.  Maybe I’ll get lucky and they won’t!

95Rollers

GherkinInTheGarden - check your Inbox messages.

GherkinInTheGarden

OK, I’ve just received my court date on 10 March.  I’m out of town and can’t really attend to getting anything ready until 6 February- it’s been 3 years since the ticket so I’ll have to get my head around it again.  Really can’t believe they’re wasting time on this - it makes me even more motivated to be well prepared.

Any advise much appreciated.  I’ve asked 95Rollers if they could share pics and their Defence as they were successful at same lot.

Coupon-mad

GherkinInTheGarden said:

"Defendant with their 13 year old child entered the Vantage Point Brighton parking lot and attempted to pay for parking via the Just Park app but was unsuccessful due to a weak cell phone signal.  After 18 minutes, they gave up and left the parking lot without another thought."

Particulars of Claim

The Claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle XXXXXX when parked at VANTAGE POINT BRIGHTON BN1 4GW.  The Site is managed by the Claimant.  The Defendant is the keeper of or the driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 of the vehicle.  Vehicles parking at the Site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on sigs at the Site and form part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.  On 11 08 22, the Vehicle was parked at the Site in breach of the contract, the contravention being NO PAYMENT TICKET.

By entering this contract the Defendant agreed they would be liable for £100.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

Just giving us some context.

Please can you edit your thread title to say QDR instead of QDF please (I know it's QDR).

They will send a witness statement and evidence pack because QDR don't discontinue.

You need to concentrate in your WS on:

1. the fact that there was no signal and both OPS and the landowner know this is an issue because you gave now discovered from in-the-know Brighton locals (me and ParkingMad!) that the landowner got so many complaints that they extended the grace period to 15 minutes.  @ParkingMad can probably find the email that confirms the 15 minutes because we've worked on Vantage Point cases before.

2. A grace period of 15 minutes (not advertised on site) merely admits the issue and pays lip service to a real solution, which would be to allow card payments and not rely on what they know doesn't work at that site (a grotty two storey back street car park amid some very high buildings which create a phone signal drop out trap).

3. OPS are notorious for doing this (making people pay by phone at places with no signal) and were stopped by the BPA who were forced to step in and prevent the same system (reported as a 'scam') at Llangrannog. I think @ParkingMad has that BPA report too.

This is relevant because it was also OPS at a comparable coastal area car park with no signal and the BPA compliance inspector admitted he had to leap back in his car and leave immediately after it was clear he simply couldn't pay, in order to avoid a PCN (the inspector knowing the grace period applicable). Consumers would not know this.

3. You didn't know there was a 15 minute grace period (who would?) and you didn't know this was an ANPR car park with a ticking time limit (based on covert camera images that you didn't consent to, or even know were taken) so you diligently tried and tried to pay.  You gained no amenity from the site and finally gave up in frustration and left. Parked elsewhere (where? Can you prove it?).

4. This is a case of frustration of contract. Consumers who take time trying to pay, then give up and leave, must not be penalised for system failures.

5. The fact that OPS use remote ANPR which cannot detect the difference between people who have parked and left their vehicle and gained amenity without paying the fee, and people caught out by the lack of signal who never actually leave their car and gain no service from this notorious  trap site, does not make a £100 parking charge fair or excusable. Such a notorious cash cow location should have proper payment methods that work, and enforcement 'on foot' or with manned CCTV so that a human can see people trying to pay.  Whilst ANPR is commonly used, it is unfair in these circumstances, where drivers are apparently set up to fail.

6.  As well as being a matter of frustration of contract, this little set-up also falls foul of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  See the examples of likely unfair situations in schedule 2 of the CRA.  And see s62 and the Court's duty under s71.

7. You also need to know IN DEPTH how to strongly argue against the POC's pleading for unspecified 'additional contractual charges' which were not quantified on any signs at this site and cannot form part of the supposed PCN contract.  Excel v Wilkinson and ParkingEye v Somerfield (High Court stage) confirm that the fake added costs are an unrecoverable penalty

GherkinInTheGarden

Thank you Coupon Mad - I’ve edited the title of my thread.  I can’t remember what I’ve received from QDR in their evidence pack, I know there were close up images of their signs which we all know are too small to read in real life.  I hope @ParkingMad can provide both the BPA report as well as the email of the increased grace period to 15 minutes.  The 13 year old that was waiting in the car is now 16 years old and we are asking her to provide a statement to go along with our ‘pack’.

ParkingMad

Here is the BPA report about Llangrannog Beach car park-

https://llangrannogwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MS-Report-Llangrannog-Beach-PDF.pdf